As a Tufts parent, as an American and as a thinking adult, I am deeply troubled by the racist events occurring on campus just before the semester break.
Of particular concern is the publication of the holiday "carol" in The Primary Source magazine. It seems obvious to me that this "carol" was written to incite, insult and perhaps intimidate a certain segment of the Tufts population. I feel certain that the first amendment guaranteeing protection of free speech was not conceived to buffer verbal displays of bigotry and racism.
However, whether or not the publication of this "carol" is protected under the First Amendment right to free speech is not my primary concern. I am far more concerned with the implications of the "carol", as it is written, as well as the possibility that my daughter and her family may no longer take unabridged pride in our affiliation with Tufts University. The content and publication of this "carol" raise the alarming possibility that ignorance is flourishing at Tufts University.
One must assume that the students involved in creating and/or publishing this piece intended it to be enlightening, amusing or both. This "carol" alleges that a disproportionate number of admitted freshmen at Tufts University were accepted based primarily on the color of their skin and regardless of their qualification, but does not offer qualitative or substantive evidence to support that view. (Simply counting the number of black students admitted to the freshman class is neither qualitative nor substantive. If the authors believe otherwise, I sincerely hope they are not planning a future career in law or mathematics.)
Failing to offer information of any substance, the "carol" was not enlightening or persuasive. Neither was it particularly creative or clever, and so this reader, at least, did not find it at all amusing. Certainly the piece is not of the caliber one might reasonably expect to find in a Tufts University student publication.
In the final analysis, it was a poorly conceived, a poorly written and a poorly executed attempt to discredit a particular group. Whether or not the right to free speech protects this kind of bigoted attack, publishing the "carol" did nothing to support the public perception of Tufts as an esteemed institution of higher learning. Perhaps it should have been denied publication for that reason alone.
If the "carol"'s writers (and, for that matter, those who supported publishing it) chose to express their views in a responsible manner, it may have served as a catalyst for critical thinking and respectful, mature discourse between students of all backgrounds.
Of course, a responsible, substantive approach inviting intelligent discourse may have proved that the allegation of racial bias is unfounded.
Or, if the allegation is not unfounded, in-depth discussions may include an examination of a historically disenfranchised population, perhaps in comparison with admissions practices that favor the under-qualified offspring of affluent alumni. This may illuminate any number of possibilities, other than that unworthy students were admitted to Tufts for dubious reasons.
Or not. While I admit that I consider it unlikely, it is possible that a closer examination might reveal irrefutable evidence that the admission practices of Tufts University are indeed unfair.
The point is that a more mature, thoughtful and measured approach to raising the possibility of unfair admissions practices would have led, one way or another, to heightened awareness and education for all concerned.
Unfortunately, honest and reasonable discourse is seldom the agenda of those who are responsible for racist tirades of this nature. Thus, they usually do not have evidence to support their views. Even when those responsible for perpetrating racist attacks do believe that they do have evidence to support their allegations, they appear to be unwilling to offer up this evidence for examination, perhaps threatened by the possibility that it will not pass scrutiny.
It is so much easier to simply launch a poorly written "joke." This "joking" is an approach that is not only demoralizing and destructive; it also lacks credibility. I am certain it is not an accurate representation of the general intellectual or creative capacity of any Tufts student, for that indeed would be cause to scrutinize the university's admissions standards.
Elisa J. Robinson is a parent of a Tufts sophomore.
